Believing/Belonging/Bounded/Centred

Commenting on my recent Celts and Post-Moderns post, Anne has asked for my perspective on “Invited people to Belong before they Believed” .  Here it is:

Some Christian communities in the past have drawn very solid lines between "insider" and "outsider".  For example, the first church that I served as Pastor used to have a railing and non-members had to move behind that rail while the members participated in the Lord's Supper (closed Communion).  Other churches draw lighter lines - it may be ok for a non Christian to play in the church soccer team but not in the Sunday morning band.  Yet others will accept the non-christian band member believing that their participation in a worshipping community could enable their transformation into becoming a worshipper.  Clearly, all traditional churches draw lines somewhere - leadership, preaching, communion.  But true acceptance and belonging has strong social, emotional and spiritual power: Jesus touched a leper and said to the tax collector "today I must eat at your house".  The passage I'm preaching on this Sunday includes Jesus' words:

"It is not the healthy who need a doctor but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." (Luke 5:31) 

People who have a true sense of welcome, belonging and acceptance just as they are, are more likely to embrace the faith of the welcomer than those who are rejected, ostracised or judged.   They often have a sense of belonging before they believe.

Perhaps Stephen expresses it better in his earlier comment when he talks about bounded and centred sets:

"The centred-set model has Jesus at the centre and, the Word then becomes both the norming norm and the reference point. The boundaries, however, are fluid and elastic. This model does not completely do away with certitude, but does temper it. The model is a kind of "soft-postmodern" approach to knowledge. Positively, it gives room for reform and correction without lapsing into the utter relativism of hard-postmodernism."

Let me amplify Stephen's comment. In Australia, with its wide open spaces, large  cattle stations can't be easily fenced.  But, as long as there is water and food, animals will not stray far from their source of nourishment.  They don't need a fence. Furthermore, when a person is travelling toward the source of Living Water it is not just their proximity to the source but the direction of their travel that is informative.

I expect that there were both sociological (acceptance) and theological reasons that impacted the woman of Samaria at the well (John 4).

Over the years, I can think of several people in my congregations who found a true sense of acceptance and belonging before they came to belief in Jesus as Saviour and Lord.

If you enjoyed this article, or found it interesting, vote for it at PlugRug so others can read it as well.

Comments

[Stuart]

I enjoyed reading your post David. No doubt Jesus showed radical acceptance when reaching out to those in need of spiritual healing... which is all of us!! As a church we too must seek to be a place where people feel free to come and experience the spiritual healing of Jesus in their lives, not judging where people have come from, but be willing to build relationships and work towards exercising the same type of radical love that Jesus showed. We wouldn't be much of a church if we didn't promote that type of environment.

However there is one aspect I would appreciate your feedback on David. You spoke of the example of the church whereby there was actual physical railing separating members and non-members during communion, so only the members could take it. Although I feel that's taking things a bit far and giving the impression of "them vs us", my experience of how many modern churches approach communion does concern me.

My heart was shaken a bit when I read the following passage the other week:

1Cor 11:26-29 "For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Therefore, whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and driks without recognising the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgement on himself."

They are very strong words!! Clearly railing is over the top, but what are your thoughts on the approach towards communion in many churches??? And in particular, in light of the above passage, whether 1) communion is only for those who believe in the sacrifice that Jesus made for us, 2) we can better give people the opportunity to search their own hearts and 3) better communicate the need to approach the Lord's table with a repentent and grateful heart.

[Paul]

Stuart, I have always understood these words to be a warning to those who would participate in the Lord's Supper without first having accepted Christ as Saviour and Lord. To do so makes a mockery of the work of Christ on the cross. Thus these are participating unworthily and bringing judgment upon themselves.

However, it is God who judges, not man, for what man knows what is in another's heart. This is a warning against participating 'unworthily' not against those who would serve the elements, for on what basis would one decide who is a child of God? The criterion would have to be some arbitrary determinant like church membership, or whether or not one was baptised, etc. But it could never be whether one was a true Jesus follower. Making this determination is beyond man.

When churches practice exclusive closed communion, they are guilty of promoting religion over relationship.

[Stuart]

I completely agree Paul, and I'm not implying that we determine whether someone is truly saved or not. That responsibility is between the person and God. God is the judge, not us. However given the severity of approaching the Lord's table in an unworthy matter, I don't believe the church in many cases "educates" the congregation so the conditions for communion are clearly stated. What the participants do with that information is up to them, and the church shouldn't be held accountable. But it is the church leadership's responsibilty to teach and educate the congregation so they can make a more informed decision. Those in leadership roles within churchs will be held accountable to how they shepherd the sheep... surely that includes educating and informing clearly the conditions for communion.

[Stephen]

In that section of the letter to the Corinthians, it seems to me Paul is dealing with the way in which the community expresses its faith (conduct in worship etc. but also, importantly, the way they treat each other).

Paul is challenging the church on the lack of care and inclusion in various events such as the Lord's Supper. Of course, being a feast, the Lord's Supper involved a whole lot of food and some were not ensuring that everyone was participating equally. Paul writes that some were getting drunk while others were going hungry (v21).

He then goes on to remind the Corinthian church just what the Lord's Supper commemorates. This is where I think our understanding of participation in communion has so often gone wrong. Communion is all about the cross. The cross is all about grace. Grace is all about inclusion in God's Kingdom.

We have so often done the opposite - that is, made communion a time only "for those who love Jesus" and thus it has been an exclusive sacrament rather than an inclusive one.

So, it seems to me that Paul's very issue with the Corinthian church was their exclusion of some from full participation in the Lord's Supper.

[Stuart]

So Stephen are you saying that those who say they don't profess to Jesus as being their Lord and Saviour can, or should be encouraged, to take part in communion as well as those who profess to follow Jesus in their lives??? I'm not sure if I am reading your comments properly.

[David Chatelier]

Some churches, eg Roman Catholic, exclude those who are not from their denomination while most evangelical churches have understood 1 Cor 11 as excluding those who have not accepted Jesus as Saviour and Lord.
However, I Corinthians was written to the church (believers) at Corinth and recognising/discerning/judging the Body is about right relationships in the church. The "unworthy manner" most likely refers to the divisions in the church where some had plenty and did not include others by sharing with them. So the feast of the Lord's Supper became a place where the divisions within the church (eg 1 Cor 3)became apparant by the way believers treated (included) each other and resulted in people participating in an "unworthy manner" and incurring the judgement of God. Yes, in a church that faced many divisive issues, Paul teaches about sharing, inclusion, and preferring each other so that believers would not incur the judgment of God.
I think evangelicals have made belief/unbelief the determining factor in the Lord's Supper, whereas 1 Corinthians 11 makes behaviour among believers the determining factor.

[beth]

The belonging/believing/behaving questions have been pivotal in much of the thinking around children and God in the last decade. One of the significant contributions that affirming the 'belonging' of a person to God before believing or behaving, is that our belonging is God-initiated. We belong to God, because of God's grace before the foundation of the world, not because we've assented to a bunch of doctrine or kept a code of conduct. Believing and behaving are responses to the sovereignty of God our creator (Father), and to the grace of God our redeemer(Christ) and the gifts and counsel of God our life giver(spirit). I don't think that the preconditions of belief-in an intellectual sense or behaviour-in a moral sense are what communion is about. Rather it is a feast of grace which we neither understand (full belief) nor deserve (right behaviour) but to which we are generously invited (truly belonging). As Paul the apostle says, and you rightly quoted Stuart, we are called to come to this mindful, or aware of the body of Christ(the whole bunch of us sharing together). I'm not sure that this is making behaviour the criteria (although I recognise that was the immediate issue in Corinth.) Rather, Paul is provoking those in the church to express their belonging to Christ and one another more appropriately.
Hopefully sometime soon, we'll share communion together and we'll express the deep belonging we all share in dependence on the grace of God, including our kids.

[Anne]

9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. Romans 10:9&10

I reckon on this being the criteria for taking communion, baptism & belonging to the Body of Christ. The individual is responsible for his standing in God.

I agree with Paul's post: "However, it is God who judges, not man, for what man knows what is in another's heart"

[Jon]

It’s funny how this topic of communion has come up this week. I have been reading a book about the Puritan preacher and theologian Jonathan Edwards, who of all people was fired from his church of 23 years b/c of his stance on communion. There is a particular chapter dedicated to this issue of communion which does make for an interesting read.

Of particular interest to me has been the way Edwards describes communion and so I post the following from him:

“Our taking the bread and the wine is as much a professing to accept of Christ, at least as a woman’s taking a ring of the bridegroom in her marriage profession and seal of her taking him for her husband. The sacramental elements in the Lord’s supper represent Christ as a party in covenant, as truly as a proxy represents a prince to a foreign lady in her marriage, and our taking those elements is as truly a professing to accept of Christ, as in the other case the lady’s taking the proxy is her professing to accept the prince as her husband…. It is as if a prince should send an ambassador to a woman in a foreign land, proposing marriage, and by his ambassador should send her his picture, and should desire her to manifest her acceptance of his suit, not only by professing her acceptance in words to his ambassador, but in token of her sincerity openly take or accept that picture.”

For those who can’t deal with antiquated, 18th century English it is basically saying that by taking the bread and the wine we are confirming that we accept Christ as our Lord. Like a man or a woman taking their wedding rings from each other in their wedding ceremony, they are committing to taking each other in marriage – her for him and him for her. The bread and wine represent the rings in this analogy. Edwards further says that it is the entering into of a covenant, again like marriage, and that by taking the elements we are “…truly professing Christ…” I think this is a right interpretation of the above! (at least the first half)

The references to the books are:
What I’m reading = John Piper & Justin Taylor, A God Entranced Vision of All Things (Crossway, 2004)
The quote = Jonathan Edwards, “A Humble Enquiry into the Rules of the Word of God” (Part 2, Sec. 9)

[Julia]

I'm a little late in commenting but I couldn't help but add my thoughts!

I have found all of the posts really challenging, but have been particularly moved by what Stephen said re. not making communion an exclusive sacrament. I think that in many ways making communion about belief vs. unbelief perhaps just replicates the situation of exclusion and hurt that was caused in the church at Corinth, drawing a strong line between those who are "in" (believers) and those who are "out" (unbelievers). Is communion all about belief vs. unbelief? Maybe Paul was actually trying to say to the Corinthians that is is more about sharing the love and hospitality of God with ALL WHO ARE AMONG US? Jesus shared the first communion with his disciples, all of whom deserted him and one of whom would betray him!!! If their level of faith and acceptance of Jesus is Lord is to be the example of those whom Jesus sees as worthy as partaking in communion, maybe we need to think about whether we have gotten our standards wrong in post-modern churches...

[Stuart]

I have just been doing some more reading and I see what you mean Julia. Jesus conducted communion with all the disciples, literally straight after highlighting the that Judas was not sincere in his faith (Matt 26:25). Jesus knew Judas was a wolf amongth the sheep and yet continued to conduct communion with him. Jesus highlights the significance of the bread and the wine, allowing the disciples to take it, acknowledging what Jesus said.

So the importance here it seems to me is that we are to inform the congregation of the significance of communion, but then allow whoever wishes to take communion to do so. It is between them and God. We are not to judge but God alone. However given the seriousness of taking communion in an unworthy manner, even amongst Christians, I feel it's important that the congregation is given adequate time to search there hearts so that we can more likely approach the Lord's table with a repentant and thankful heart, and not be flippant about it.

This has been a very insightful blog :)